I recently received a comment on one of my older posts. The commenter undoubtedly believes that Easter is a pagan holiday to be avoided, and that Christians instead should observe the "Lord's Supper" only on the night of the Jewish Passover.
Because I find it valuable to examine the beliefs of the Early Church, the commenter posted a quotation from ancient historian Eusebius (pictured above), who cited a letter from Polycrates to the Roman bishop Victor. Polycrates, based on a tradition he says comes from the apostle John, insisted on observing the date of the Jewish Passover, while Victor insisted on maintaining the Sunday observance for Easter. Earlier that century, Polycarp had the same argument with Anicetus.
The anonymous commenter concludes, "So now, who left the teachings of the first generations of Christians?"
I am sure the commenter overlooks certain points when reading this account from Eusebius' History of the Church:
- It's evident that there was a certain kind of authority or primacy associated with the bishop of Rome -- both Victor and Anicetus. Why did Polycrates and Polycarp insist on talking to the Roman bishop unless he had some sort of widely recognized authority in church matters? It also appears the Roman bishop had the authority to excommunicate whole parishes and regions from the faithful. (Note: This is long before Constantine and the Council of Nicea of A.D. 325.)
- The whole controversy was over specific dates, not specific celebrations. The truth is that they debated when to celebrate a special annual observance of the the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both sides of the controversy were speaking of the same event, but argued over when it was to be observed. It was not "Should we keep 'God's Passover' or 'pagan Easter'?" There is no evidence that the pope was trying to force a new celebration upon Christians. Thus there was no outcry against colored eggs, Cadbury bunnies, or pagan accoutrements (secular, modern "Easter" symbols didn't arrive till much later).
- Polycrates and the others Asiatics on his side also observed a form of Lent. The length of "the fast" leading up to Easter (or Passover, whichever you wish to call it) also varied according to different traditions. But, unlike the anonymous commenter, they still observed this already ancient tradition.
- Despite their differences, after their visit, "Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect." If Polycarp thought Anicetus was falling headlong into paganism, why did he agree to administer the Eucharist? By the way, because of their strong views, surely this particular Eucharistic celebration was held neither on the Jewish Passover date nor on Easter Sunday. It would have been an ordinary weekly Sunday, which was a customary practice for both of them.
To read about this in fuller context, read all of chapter 24 in Eusebius' work here.
4 comments:
yeah...here it is...
"It's evident that there was a certain kind of authority or primacy associated with the bishop of Rome "
or maybe they were simply concerned about brethern getting off track, and trying to correct them before they left the faith.....
"The whole controversy was over specific dates, not specific celebrations"
well, when you change the date, you change the observance...and Easter is not even remotely related to Passover.
"Polycrates and the others Asiatics on his side also observed a form of Lent."
now, THAT is a STRETCH....lol
"Despite their differences, after their visit, "Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp,"
could be that he simply compromised to get along...it's not the right thing to do, but I've seen it happen many times in the Church, and never with a good ending....
I know that I cannot change your mind, only God can do that....but I sure pray for your conversion.
take care my friend!
Further things to note:
The Roman bishop's authority to excommunicate churches in other parts of the world was never questioned. It was only the wisdom of doing so that was questioned.
I disagree that if "you change the date, you change the observance." When WCG began to observe a Sunday Pentecost in place of a Monday Pentecost, it was only the date -- not the observance -- that was changed. Another example: People born on February 29 often celebrate their birthday on a different day, since February 29 only comes around once every four years. When it's celebrated on February 28 or March 1, the meaning of the celebration is no different from when it's celebrated on February 29.
Easter is closely related to Passover. The difference is one of perspective and clarity. On Passover, a lamb was sacrificed to symbolize the forgiveness of sins on the other side of the cross. Easter portrays clearly Jesus Christ's self-sacrifice and resurrection that indeed forgives our sins and makes salvation available. One is a shadowy precursor, and the other is a clear commemoration.
When I wrote of those early Christians observing a form of Lent, I was referring to the "fast" they observed leading up to the annual commemoration of the Paschal event. You can read about it at the link I provided at the end of my original post.
Peace to you.
"When WCG began to observe a Sunday Pentecost in place of a Monday Pentecost, it was only the date -- not the observance -- that was changed."
actually, they were not observing Pentecost when they kept it on Monday, they only thought that they were.....much like keeping the Sabbath on Sunday, it can't be done because the Sabbath is not on Sunday...
WCG treated that particular Monday like Pentecost, but they weren't observing the holy day because it was already past...
same thing goes for those born on Feb.29, they can treat another day like their birthday, but it's not their birthday...
and you can believe that Easter is closely related to Passover if you choose, but believing something doesn't make it true.....
take care.
and you can believe that Easter is closely related to Passover if you choose, but believing something doesn't make it true.....
No, believing something doesn't make it true, but it remains a historical fact that Easter developed directly from the Jewish Paschal festival. That's why Christians call it Pascha, Passover. If it doesn't have anything to do with Passover, why do we call it Passover, and why do our calculations of the date involve the Paschal full moon?
Also, though you think it's a stretch to say that the Quartodeciman Catholics had a form of Lenten observance, the historical record shows that they did. St. Irenaeus of Lyons explains how the disagreement between the Quartodeciman Catholics and the rest of the Catholic Church wasn't just about what day to celebrate the resurrection, but was also about what day to end the pre-paschal fast.
Finally, you are probably unaware that the Quartodecimans observed their Easter (Pascha) festival not on Nisan 14, but on Nisan 15.
Post a Comment